On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Right. I think that any design that involves per-GUC catalog entries
> is going to be an abysmal failure, precisely because the set of GUCs
> is not stable enough.
In practice it's pretty stable. I think it's just a matter of having a
plan that covers the cases where it isn't stable reasonably elegantly.
We already embed GUC names in catalog entries when someone runs ALTER
USER SET or ALTER DATABASE SET, so this proposal doesn't seem to be
moving the goalposts in any meaningful way.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com